Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part IV

[Myriad]

I don't need to calculate anything as I don't believe the Estonia did float on its superstructure as the JAIC claims, whilst its windows filled with water.

New calculations by VINNOVA in 2008 and as agreed by the Swedish bods, show that it needed to have an inflow of almost three times as much seawater than JAIC state and a displacement of air of nearer 83% for the Estonia to have sunk like that.

ERR

I believe the Baltic Sea contains sufficient seawater to sink the ship.

Where did those calculations conclude the ship should have turned completely over before sinking? Center of mass, center of buoyancy... anything?

 

[Vixen]

If you feel my post is off-topic, report it for moderation. Don't insinuate things instead for rhetorical value.

Your arguments, whether sounding in psychology or in physics, are predicated almost entirely on statements you make from your own ken that would ordinarily otherwise require some degree of specialized knowledge. When pressed, you cannot demonstrate that knowledge -- although sometimes you toy with suggesting you have it. Nor can you reconcile your declarations with the knowledge demonstrated by others or found in the relevant literature. If you don't want the basis of your say-so questioned, don't make arguments that boil down to "Because I say so."

Quasi conclusion. I have never said, "Because I say so."

You are a master of false logic, I'll give you that.


Instead of discussing the topic of the thread you have been trying to divert it to deprecating the poster instead.

 

[JayUtah]

I have never said, "Because I say so."

I said your arguments boil down to that. You state your beliefs about, say, the stability of ships. And you seem to think that having stated that belief, the facts of the matter have been revealed and bear no further discussion.

Instead of discussing the topic of the thread you have been trying to divert it to deprecating the poster instead.

The topic of the thread is your belief that the original investigation of the sinking of MS Estonia was flawed and that any of several farfetched scenarios is more likely. The discussion of that belief requires us to examine your arguments, which are quite often allusions to what you think the prevailing scientific principles, or industrial practices, are. Your understanding of those principles is not irrelevant. And since you provide little other authority, that is the only basis on which they can be rebutted.

I've addressed the actual physics of your arguments in considerable depth. By and large, you ignore those presentations, or at best give them a one-sentence dismissal. It's hard for you to argue that I've "diverted" the discussion away from the scientific meat and potatoes. I have to ask you repeatedly if you remember what I have already said on a particular subject after you've brought it up again, and you never seem to remember. Are you really interested in that depth of discussion?

 

[Vixen]

I believe the Baltic Sea contains sufficient seawater to sink the ship.

Where did those calculations conclude the ship should have turned completely over before sinking? Center of mass, center of buoyancy... anything?

If we take the JAIC assumption that the only damage to the ship was both the bow visor and the bow ramp falling off due to a strong wave, then ipso facto the hull must be intact and there was no collision or explosion (whether due to ingress of water into pipes or not), in addition to the vessel being seaworthy when it departed (as the JAIC state), then it is correct that once the boat heels far enough either to port or starboard, there comes a point when it will topple over - and this happens quite quickly - and floats upside down.


Normally, because of water gradually displacing the air it would sink eventually.

 

[junkshop]

He shot himself in the foot and cited a post he knew (?) was the wrong one. Just to score a point.


As Trump might say: SAD!

No-one was talking about that post. A reminder of the conversation for you:

Zooterkin's post:

I do not make false claims,

Yes, you do.

Crumbs.

The Oceanos flooded because seawater got into its watertight compartments in the engine room, which is in the hull.

wiki


It didn't turn turtle as it was bottom heavy with water.

*Looks like it was listing on its port side, not starboard side.

Your reply:

That is because the video was filming the ship from behind giving it the optical illusion of moving forwards from my viewpoint, which would have made it the port side leaning over.

I did put a question mark next to it.

 

[JayUtah]

...then it is correct that once the boat heels far enough either to port or starboard, there comes a point when it will topple over - and this happens quite quickly - and floats upside down.

Are you sure that point is inevitable? Draw us up a vector diagram to illustrate this. And yes, I know you once referred to a YouTube video that provided a simplification of part of the solution. I want you to demonstrate you know the whole solution. In your words.

 

[SpitfireIX]

His factual statements about Estonia seem bang on the nail to me. Elementary principles, easily calculable. Hans Hoffmeister of Hamburg University had no problem in calculating the Finite Element stress thresholds of each of the locks on the bow visor. Completely different from the JAIC who had three years' advantage.

Objective, scientific, provable.

Just to add to what others have written, it is possible for a person to be a competent expert in one field, and yet be a hopeless crank in another. For example, Isaac Newton believed in and actively practiced alchemy. But someone who demonstrates such a tenuous grip on reality as Björkman has must be assumed to be incompetent in the absence of strong, credible evidence to the contrary. And as has been noted many times, you are not qualified to provide any such evidence.

Additionally, you have repeatedly protested that you are not promoting any conspiracy theory. Although this claim is demonstrably false on its face, I would also point out that using Björkman as a source does not tend to bolster your contention, as many of his claims are clearly conspiracy theories. His assertion about nuclear weapons is a particularly blatant example, which you attempted to handwave away by characterizing it as simply "an opinion." To state that this is like calling Holocaust denial "simply an opinion" is no exaggeration.

And finally, on that note, you have on more than one occasion claimed that anyone who doesn't support investigations into your various conspiracy theories is disrespecting the victims and their families. Yet Björkman clearly disrespects the victims and survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, going so far as to insinuate that there were very few casualties, and that all of the witnesses are either made up, lying, or were hoodwinked.

So please explain to us, Vixen, why you're okay with using Björkman as a source.

 

[zooterkin]

Pity you didn't do your homework properly. Always looking for mistakes but slow to acknowledge corrections.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13672877#post13672877

Six hours after making a false claim, you made another post which questioned the correct interpretation. (The question mark was against 'starboard', so you were again doubting the reality.)

That does not in any way negate the fact that you made a false claim in the first place.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... in addition to the vessel being seaworthy when it departed (as the JAIC state)...

It's all the JAIC's fault. If only they hadn't insisted the Estonia was fit to sail, it might not have set out on the fatal voyage and all those people might have been saved. Wicked, wicked JAIC.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

<ZZZZZZZZZ>

Again, pathetic. Why is it that you answered two questions of this type, but skipped the question of whether you claimed to be a scientist?

Do you believe yourself to be a scientist Vixen? It's a simple question. Here, I'll even answer first.

No, I am not a scientist, nor do I profess to have a science background. I do not practice science as a profession, and my qualification was International Relations.

Now you try.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Just to add to what others have written, it is possible for a person to be a competent expert in one field, and yet be a hopeless crank in another. For example, Isaac Newton believed in and actively practiced alchemy. But someone who demonstrates such a tenuous grip on reality as Björkman has must be assumed to be incompetent in the absence of strong, credible evidence to the contrary. And as has been noted many times, you are not qualified to provide any such evidence.

Additionally, you have repeatedly protested that you are not promoting any conspiracy theory. Although this claim is demonstrably false on its face, I would also point out that using Björkman as a source does not tend to bolster your contention, as many of his claims are clearly conspiracy theories. His assertion about nuclear weapons is a particularly blatant example, which you attempted to handwave away by characterizing it as simply "an opinion." To state that this is like calling Holocaust denial "simply an opinion" is no exaggeration.
.

It's worse than that. To be comparable, the person denying the holocaust in your example would need to be being presented as a historian.

Again, the Anders Bjorkman situation is exactly analogous to someone claiming that Dr Ben Smith is an expert on medicine and can be relied upon to competently discuss COVID precautions while also ignoring that Dr Smith doesn't think germs are real and believes that disease is an imbalance of the humours.

Or to use your analogy, it would be like claiming that David Irving is a legitimate source on the battles of WWII.

 

[Steve]

If we take the JAIC assumption that the only damage to the ship was both the bow visor and the bow ramp falling off due to a strong wave, then ipso facto the hull must be intact and there was no collision or explosion (whether due to ingress of water into pipes or not), in addition to the vessel being seaworthy when it departed (as the JAIC state), then it is correct that once the boat heels far enough either to port or starboard, there comes a point when it will topple over - and this happens quite quickly - and floats upside down.


Normally, because of water gradually displacing the air it would sink eventually.

Those are your assumptions, not the JAIC's. The JAIC report contains no assumptions.

 

[Vixen]

No-one was talking about that post. A reminder of the conversation for you:

Zooterkin's post:



Your reply:

How is that a false claim about myself?

I said:

*Looks like it was listing on its port side, not starboard side.


Because that is what it looks like to me. Either the video was transposed right to left or the film was from behind the ship, which from my viewpoint looked as though it was listing to the left.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The JAIC itself says that the ship could not have capsized by seawater flooding the car deck alone.

That's good, because that's not what happened.

 

[Myriad]

If we take the JAIC assumption that the only damage to the ship was both the bow visor and the bow ramp falling off due to a strong wave, then ipso facto the hull must be intact and there was no collision or explosion (whether due to ingress of water into pipes or not), in addition to the vessel being seaworthy when it departed (as the JAIC state), then it is correct that once the boat heels far enough either to port or starboard, there comes a point when it will topple over - and this happens quite quickly - and floats upside down.

No, that is not correct. This is a case where, without full knowledge and analysis of the relevant factors and "rules," the correct answer is "it depends." To state that there must be a point where it will topple over is like saying my work clothing must be tax deductible. You haven't established the relevant facts (e.g. coordinates and magnitudes of the centers of buoyancy and mass, let alone the crucial turning moments) to justify that specific a conclusion.

 

[JesseCuster]

I once had an accountancy lecturer who would go absolutely apoplectic with rage and frustration, throwing his chalk about, if a student dared answer any of his exceedingly tough questions with, 'It depends'. Likewise, the examiners: the key to passing the mind-bending exams was to take a view and then justify it.

'It depends,' as an answer, is a big fat, 'No Baby, no'.

Try again.

This isn't a school physics exam where you can assume that all the info you need is in the question.

The real world is complex and sometimes you simply don't have enough information to come to a conclusion, so the correct answer is to say that "it depends" because you lack the information to come to a more definitive conclusion. Welcome to the real world.

It makes no sense when given a complex real world situation that you're trying to understand, and take the approach "take a view and then justify it". That's how school debates work, not how the real world works.

Although if Vixen thinks that it's scientific and rigorous to "take a view and then justify it" with regards to real world situations, then it would certainly explain this thread.

 

[Vixen]

You literally told us that engineers could just approach problems the way you did in school while taking tests. A very significant part of your entire argumentative strategy in this thread is to point out that various people did things wrong, because in your wisdom it should have been done differently.

I personally never had to 'state assumptions' in exams as I always got the maths calculations out of the way during reading time.


It doesn't matter how technical or mathematical the exam, for most professional qualifications you need written and reasoning skills, on top of three year's vocational skills.

I am sure you do believe yourself to be the arbiter in whether the JAIC did a good job or not. More's the pity you have never deigned to contribute why or why not.

Anyone can blow a trumpet. Let's see your debating skills.

(Cue: 'Asked and answered'.)

 

[JayUtah]

I personally never had to 'state assumptions' in exams...

This has nothing to do with school exams.

I am sure you do believe yourself to be the arbiter in whether the JAIC did a good job or not.

I've stated no such belief. I am, however, a competent judge regarding the scientific validity of your challenges to JAIC. Your challenges to the JAIC findings are what this thread is about.

Anyone can blow a trumpet. Let's see your debating skills.

Let's see your science skills.

 

[Vixen]

Six hours after making a false claim, you made another post which questioned the correct interpretation. (The question mark was against 'starboard', so you were again doubting the reality.)

That does not in any way negate the fact that you made a false claim in the first place.

Well done, you changed the context. The context was making false claims (about myself). And by the way there was no false claim re the video, because guess what? It DID look like port to me. As I said.

But you knew that.

 

[Vixen]

No-one was talking about that post. A reminder of the conversation for you:

Zooterkin's post:



Your reply:

Did you not see this:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13672877#post13672877

Spot the question mark?